It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What happened to the top 20 floors of the WTC?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Gravity....bouncing off a million other fragments...hitting the ground....whatever you want to call it, concrete will destroy itself




posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Its rather strange is it not that when buildings are brought down by earth quakes one can see the pancake collapse and even complete buildings that have toppled over have stayed in one piece. It also interesting that failed demo jobs can leave whole parts of the upper structure intact with no pancaking. Also buildings that have been hit by planes have not collapsed as with the WTC, so in those scenarious you have natural, accidents and controlled demolitions yet the buildings can still remain intact and recognisable but not the WTC.

If those who believe the official story actually looked into the above they would realise that it was not the planes or fire that brougt the buildings down. Yes there would be damage, yes part of the buildings could of collapsed but all of each one and on their own footprint. No I'm sorry but those who wish to dellude themselves need to snap out of their self imposed ignorance and realise that they have a Goverment that murders its own people, WACO, RUBY RIDGE, OKLAHOMA BOMBING AND 9/11. How much more do they have to do before you will believe it, what other crimes do they have to commit before the veil is lifted.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Swamp, Why dont you get a lump of reinforced concrete and drop it from height, you will be amazed to see that it does not turn to dust or even small pieces, even in controlled demolitions concrete structures are not turned to dust, large parts of masonry can still be observed.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
And even in the rubble of the WTC, you could STILL SEE LARGE PIECES OF CONCRETE. I do not know what moron started the rumor that all the concrete was vaporized and even worse, why people would believe that, despite all the photos. Of course I guess it shouldnt surprise me since there used to be a person on here that insisted all the steel was removed from the towers PRIOR to 9/11......



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And even in the rubble of the WTC, you could STILL SEE LARGE PIECES OF CONCRETE. I do not know what moron started the rumor that all the concrete was vaporized and even worse, why people would believe that, despite all the photos. Of course I guess it shouldnt surprise me since there used to be a person on here that insisted all the steel was removed from the towers PRIOR to 9/11......


There are several threads on ATS discussing the energy needed to convert 85% of the concrete into dust. It seems to me that gravity alone could not have achieved this. I read somewhere the exact makeup of the dust as to size of the particles, but now I can't find it. I believe they were talking about 3-6 microns, while a "normal" collapse would produse around 6mm sized particles. Pretty big difference. You might wanna read through these for starters:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And even in the rubble of the WTC, you could STILL SEE LARGE PIECES OF CONCRETE.


Yeah, in the foundations/basement floors. If you have any pics of large pieces of floor slabs, post them here. I've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of Ground Zero images. So good luck finding what I've yet to see.


As far as the Greening papers you posted links to, those are flawed. Surely you don't think that anything anyone says just to agree with the official line is automatically correct in whatever they suggest, just because they agree with the official line. Right?

Greening assumes all of the mass dropped straight down, and he re-used each floor's mass and momentum to crush each floor, when in reality the moving block of floors would have transferred its momentum ONCE, and ONLY ONCE, and then mass began falling over the sides immediately, with most of the building landing outside of the footprints.

More info here (addresses Greening re-using energy that's already been spent) and here (addresses Greening's assumption that all mass fell straight down).

Greening also assumed that all of the weight of the upper block fell straight down onto the trusses, rather than the loads being transferred into the buildings' columns, which would make a hell of a lot more sense. Just in general, the guy's stuff is not accurate. He may be an experienced chemist, I wouldn't know, but we should both realize enough about the collapses to realize that this guy's expertise is not here, in making mathematical models of the collapses.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join